Tom Rexton

No, I didn't bother to look at a world map, but I assure you we have high-quality world maps in printed and electronic forms here! I made this poll rather hastilly and recalled the countries from the top of my head (not from a map). Let me contact a moderator or administrator... [edited] since I don't know who is capable of changing the poll, I'll just request from this post any moderator/administrator who can, change the poll above to the following to avoid the confusion of the original categories: 1) USA 2) North America (excluding USA) 3) South America 4) Europe 5) Asia 6) Africa 7) Australia 8) Other

In the categories above Brazil would be included with South Europe and Spanish America. I chose to classify the countries CULTURALLY as well as GEOGRAPHICALLY, which is why Spain, Portugal and Italy are classified along with Central and South American countries. As I disclaimed: my knowledge of foreign countries is not thorough or completely accurate, especially with respect to Asia, South and Central America, Africa and the Middle East. And yes I did make the USA a class on its own for that reason. No, I chose not to divide by continents because I thought that would be too broad, espcially with Asia. ---- To eldiego: I classified Greece with Eastern Europe. I apologize if that is inaccurate culturally. ---- Now that you guys have revealed the confusion on the categories, perhaps I should ask a moderator or administrator to edit the poll to the following (if possible): 1) USA 2) North America (excluding USA) 3) South America 4) Europe 5) Asia 6) Africa 7) Australia 8) Other

I'd like to know how the forum members are distributed throughout the globe. Observe that I divided the countries into mainly cultural-geographical divisions. They're as accurate as my very limited knowledge of many foreign countries can make it, so if you believe that a better categorization can be made of some countries, please let me know. [Moderator's note: As pointed out by jrs, something has gone awry with this poll. The first choice used to be "USA". Now, it is gone from the poll. I have therefore changed the poll-question to ask about non-US members. -sNerd]

Disagree with what? That Libertarians denounce Ayn Rand all the while plagiarizing her ideas? I thought that article by Bob Wallace clearly demonstrated it. Or do you disagree that Libertarians can do the most harm to capitalism? Because of the lack of any clear understanding and meaning of the term "capitalism" among the general public, and because of the widespread belief that Libertarians are defenders and proponents of capitalism, and that their philosophy IS the philosophy of capitalism, honest people, once they see the moral subjectivism, pragmatism and deep contradictions of Libertarianism, will (mistakenly) reject capitalism. That's the last thing we want to happen... Like I said before, Libertarians can do most harm to capitalism as the social Darwinist did when they tried to defend capitalism on the basis of such notions as "survival of the fitest" and "law of the jungle". Those made people falsely believe that capitalism is a system of brute, ruthless, competition in which only "the strong"--i.e., the industrialists--survive. Imagine the public discrediment of capitalism when people think that it is (allegedly) a system of moral subjectivism, of anarchy, of whim--as the Libertarians claim. If what we need to do first and foremost is TO EDUCATE the public of the TRUTH about capitalism, then the last thing we need is to promote the wrong moral basis of capitalism.

Hi! I'm a Filipino immigrant turned Objectivist, too! My parents brought me here when I was eight years old -- back in December 1994! I definitely know what you mean by the deep, persistent mysticism there! I lived in a rural province in northern Luzon, so the collectivism-mysticism was even more prevalent in my life than in the lives of Filipinos in Manila. Doesn't everbody? You know the mythology about America in the Philippines. Seems like every Filipino wants to move here--especially after hearing about the lives of Filipino immigrants. As a child, I remember receiving exotic consumer goods from relatives living in America who come back occasionally for vacation. They would always bring huge boxes full of gifts to give to us, gifts that would fuel my imaginations about America. Then there's the stories of how they live--descriptions and things that I now find mundane (after having lived here for ten years) but nevertheless I'm sure my cousins who live in the Philippines would find very fascinating. [edited, added last paragraph]

That article reminds me of a quote from an interview of Ayn Rand: So relevant and true even today!!! Oh, and BTW, Zoso, Ayn Rand was asked the very question you're asking in this thread. Read the article linked above and then read her response: You can read the rest of the interview here.

Is it me, or is Bob Wallace none other than Whittaker Chambers in disguise? (read his review of Atlas Shrugged in the National Review). That article makes the libertarians worse than some conservatives--at least Rush Limbaugh openly promotes Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead in his website. He may not be an Objectivist, but he is doing us a favor by helping us promote Ayn Rand to the general public. [edited for grammatical errors]

Because of all the enemies to Liberty and capitalism, Libertarianism is the most dangerous. Just as the alleged defenders of capitalism in the 19th century had done far more to descredit capitalism by basing it on Darwinist sociology, so the alleged modern defenders of liberty (the libertarians) can do far more damage to capitalism by basing it on moral subjectivism. Just consider, who is more deplorable: an explicit collectivist or a collectivist pretending to be an individualist?

Given the government's unbelievably long backlog in reviewing applications for immigrants, you might have to wait years to come to America. If you have immediate relatives here, you'll have a much easier time--visas are unlimited and immediately available. It takes a very long time and a lot of money. (You can then see why so many prefer to come here illegally)

If you go to both American and European universities, there is no distinction among the three anti-Americanisms you pointed out. They decry American foreign policy as "imperialistic", "arrogant" and "aggressive"; they disparage Americans as "selfish", "naive" and "boorish"; and they denounce Enlightenment values as...you should know already. I believe tommyedison must have meant the last: opposition to the Enlightenment values. He could not have meant opposition to foreign and domestic policies for he too, and most of us here in this forum, oppose the overwhelming majority of Bush's domestic and foreign policies! And we're certainly not "anti-American"! That's rather odd--for, as the recent presidential election demonstrated, a majority of individual Americans implicitly support Bush's foreign policy.

Certain concepts can be designated by more than one word. Take just the three examples: "get together" (to assemble) "put up with" (to tolerate) "turn into" (to become) The meaning of each phrase is NOT the conjoined meaning of the constituent words. Instead, each phrase designates a unique concept. There are many in all kind of languages: they're called IDIOMS.

I did thought of that, and now I feel rather stupid for following a mistaken, unecessary, and torturous lead into circular definitions when I should have just tried to clarify my understanding of "initiation". You see, I was thinking of "initiation" as the starting of a process and that confused me because I couldn't figure how and where does one mark the beginning of this process (the process being the act of force). After having looked at the definition of "to initiate", I realized now that it's as simple as you said: Agent X initiates force against individual Y if X is the first to use force. Then I thought, what if Y had initiated force against individual C many years ago, was convicted of a crime, sentenced to prison, has served his time and is now free? Why is it that if X uses force against Y, X is initiating force? I am certain that it is an initiation of force; I just can't explain why Y cannot be said to have used force first, when Y certainly did use force against C before X used forced against Y. My basic questions (which I believe isolate the crux of my problem) are thus: 1. What is it that makes X's use of force not a part of the series of uses of force begun when Y attacked C, and therefore classifies it as the first of a new, different series? 2. More generally, what is it that makes some uses of forces a series and others another, different one? If I know the answer to either question, I can use it to integrate a given number of uses of forces into a series (or seperate them into different series), order them temporaly and easily determine who used force FIRST. I can thereby determine who initiated force.

I have already conceded that the "initiation of force" is a phrase, not a concept. But my problem remains. See post #20 above. [edited, wrong link]

Alright, having reread that section in the index, I concede that it is a PHRASE. But my problem has not vanished into nonexistence: Starting the use of force is forcing someone who has not started the use of force against anyone? ----- Concept or prhase, the characterization is still circular. [edited by Tom Rexton, added the quote to which this post is replying]

True, but I still can't avoid being circular: initiation: the act of starting something initiation of force: the act of starting the use of force against an individual who has NOT initiated force. The clause "who has not initiated force" is necessary in order to distinguish it from the generic "force" and "retaliation". I think the problem stems from the ambiguity in "initiation" and "starting". ---- BTW, I replied to Ed from OC post #4 in post #6, which you guys seemed to have missed.

Assuming that it is just a phrase--a "qualified instance" of a concept, as it is called in the index in ITOE, then the concept must be "force" and the qualifier "initiation". Force would then be defined as "an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will." The "initiation of force" would then be the use of force against an individual who has not initiated force himself; otherwise, such an act would be a form of retaliation. But you see, I still can't find way to avoid using the term to "characterize" it. The characterization is still circular! It's like saying a broken glass is a glass that is broken! True, but of no help.

Concepts need not have single words to stand for them. Take the 3-word concept Ayn Rand formed: the Conceptual Common Denominator. I believe "initiation of force" is such a concept--not primary, of course, and certainly dependent on many other logically prior concepts (force, will, individual, intention, physical, etc.)

I think it is essential that the physical act be intentional--accidental damage of another's property, accidental injury and accidental killing are not instances of the initiation of force. Think about your car malfunctioning as you're driving down a road, and you end up accidentally running into some's car or house. Such a damage would not be intentional, though certainly a physical act against the will of the property owner(s). This would not be an initiation of force. Think of another case where you're driving down a road and a person by sheer negligence (perhaps he's wearing headphones with music playing at a loud volume) crosses the street without looking both ways, in which case you severely injur if not kill the person. Such would NOT be an initiation of force, though certainly a physical act on the body of the person against his will. No, all crimes are instances of the initiation of force. There is no crime wherein some force is not involved--unless you mean "crime" as defined by the current US Code, rather than crimes as defined by an Ideal Objective Code. The CCD (identified above) is the genus. It subsumes all intentional, physical actions on an individual's body or property, such as hugging, kissing, healing, touching. It would be an initiation of force if these acts were done against the will of the individual. It also subsumes such acts as using, desposing or destroying someone else's property, and would be an initiation of force if such acts were against the will of the property owner. It is for these reasons that I concluded that the differentia is "contrary to the will of the individual who (or whose property) is acted upon and who himself has not initiated force". Traits common to all are: the acts are physical the acts are intentional the acts are contrary to the individual's will the individual himself has not initiated force But to violate an individual's rights IS to initate force against him--there is no other way. You can't make the referent (initiation of force) be the differentia (violation of rights), for it would only make the definition circular, which is precisely what I'm trying to avoid. To qualify "individual" with the adjective "innocent"--with "innocent" meaning "not having initiated force"--is another form of a circular definition. [edited for spelling errors]

That's why I stated I can't find a way to avoid circularity. If I dropped that clause, it would be simply a definition of FORCE, not an INITIATION of force.

I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to define "initiation of force" without forming a circular defintion. This is what I have so far: Definition: an intentional, physical act on the body or property of an individual against his will, provided that this individual himself has not initiated force. Conceptual Common Denominator (CCD): intentional, physical action on an individual or property thereof Differentia: contrary to the will of the individual who (or whose property) is acted upon and who himself has not initiated force (source of circularity) Examples of Subsumed Units: physical assault rape murder theft robbery arson fraud -------- some explanation: "intentional, phsyical act" -- intentional because accidentally damaging or destroying another person's property is not an initiation of force; physical because thinking about, dreaming of, visualizing, (or otherwise doing any mental with) someone's body or property against his will is not an initiation of force.

Do you know if he legally changed his name to "John Galt" or did his parents give him the name?

What I responded to in your post was your citing "slipshop construction practices" as the primary cause of the catastrophe. I merely stated that such "slipshop construction practices" could not have been avoided, given their widespread and persistent poverty, no matter what the insurance companies or multi-national corporations demanded. In fact, had the governments enforced such high-standard building codes, it would probably have produced even more deaths. Such codes would have forbidden the "slipshod" construction of more cheap housing--which is the only kind of housing these people can afford--and thereby cause a shortage of cheap housing, forcing the already crowded houses and buildings to contain more people than before. It's akin to the housing shortages we have in the US in some cities, where there is rent control and very strict building codes that force builders to ensure certain dimensions and features of housing units, which make them more costly than what poor people would be willing or able to pay for.

I think you're using the term "conflict of interest" in a different sense from what Greedy Capitalist did. Have you ever read Ayn Rand's essay "The 'Conflicts' of Men’s Interests" in The Virtue of Selfishness?

Are you serious? Self-defense? Retaliation? Comparing Dominique's slaping Roark to the 9/11 terrorist act? If you are serious, then... That would've been imoral--there already existed a state which could've properly taken care of such "initiation of force". One does not take the law into one's own hand unless there is no state or the state is a dictatorship. Ayn Rand has unequivocally denied it was "rape": Roark didn't do for "retaliation" and it wasn't a matter of "coincidence" that she liked being raped. He was physically violent BECAUSE she wanted him to be--and he knew it.

Is not the Asian tsunami disaster the context of this topic? And is it not true that the overwhelming majority of the buildings destroyed were built BY and FOR the poor inhabitants of the said countries, not by multi-national corporations and financial institutions who can afford to demand high-standard buildings? So I don't see how my discussion about government building regulations in the impoverished countries is a "straw-man", because whether government or private building codes, those people simply cannot afford it without major deprivation.